Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 17:14:05 GMT 5
Okay, maybe I was underestimating the blue whale. ~90-95 tonnes it is then. But still the ~150-200 tonne ones should be ignored when comparing it to gigantic extinct taxa. No data has to be segregated. The majority of fossil specimens are likely average-sized individuals so we must do it the safest way: compare them to averages. Until any of those gigantic fossil taxa has a very high number of known specimens(something like Allosaurus), we should not use the largest blue whale specimens to compare to them. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 17:15:57 GMT 5
Not necessarily no, but possibly. Considering our respective samples, we shouldn't root with the conservative end here.
What we can now say with a decent amount of probability is that the largest sauropods were between 100 and 200t. There is no reason to favour the lower end in this comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 17:17:56 GMT 5
We don't know if the majority of the fossils are average and this is NEVER taken into account by paleontologists when comparing to modern taxa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 17:22:31 GMT 5
Not necessarily no, but possibly. Considering our respective samples, we shouldn't root with the conservative end here. What we can now say with a decent amount of probability is that the largest sauropods were between 100 and 200t. There is no reason to favour the lower end in this comparison. The possibly largest sauropod is A. frgillimus estimated at most likely between 90-150 tons. The largest certified sauropods are either Argentinosaurus, Alamosaurus, Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Ruyangosaurus. I'm opened to any possibilities, but I definitely reject you stating these as factual. No need to continue this discussion, you'll never convince me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2013 17:32:58 GMT 5
Not necessarily no, but possibly. Considering our respective samples, we shouldn't root with the conservative end here. What we can now say with a decent amount of probability is that the largest sauropods were between 100 and 200t. There is no reason to favour the lower end in this comparison. I agree. Lower doesn't mean better. And here's something I found out: conservative and liberal have nothing to do with how high or low an estimate is, but rather on the method. Liberal means taking extra liberties and making more assumptions, conservative means extrapolation based only on known elements and what relatives suggest, without extra liberties. That would mean that things like ~78-tonne Amphicoelias and ~12.5-meter Spinosaurus were actually quite liberal, since extra assumptions have been taken that made them smaller. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 19:16:19 GMT 5
Not necessarily no, but possibly. Considering our respective samples, we shouldn't root with the conservative end here. What we can now say with a decent amount of probability is that the largest sauropods were between 100 and 200t. There is no reason to favour the lower end in this comparison. The possibly largest sauropod is A. frgillimus estimated at most likely between 90-150 tons. The largest certified sauropods are either Argentinosaurus, Alamosaurus, Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Ruyangosaurus. I'm opened to any possibilities, but I definitely reject you stating these as factual. No need to continue this discussion, you'll never convince me. I can see that. But you need to read what I post before you reply. I did not state anything as a fact, facts are rare in palaeontology. Unless Cope made his vertebra up, Amphicoelias was that large. The lower end of estimates is extremely conservative, and bases on an overestimated vertebral height in diplodocus. If you correct for this, it is 120t at minimum, based on diplodocus. I'm open to using different animals for scale, but when doing so we have to make sure an objective comparison is possible, in other words, don't use an animal that has far more elongate neural spines. Read the SVPOW post. 100-200t is likely for the plagne trackmaker. Rejecting that as a myth or at best unlikely speculation like you would like to is not accurate. 200t is an entirely possible estimate and no worse than the lower end, but again, I am opened to corrections why it should be. Considering the facts, what the ichnites are and what is written about them, assuming the Blue whale to be larger is the unlikely assumption imo it merely remains the largest extant animal and potentially the largest with a fairly reliable size figure. But that there are several ichnotaxa from the mesozoic AND body fossils that can all be estimated to be of comparable size clearly points out to this not being some sort of unreliable freak case, and to the most likely scenario, which is that these sauropods are definitely contenders for the title of the largest animal ever. The evidences are just too many to be just whiped aside as unlikely speculation that cannot be taken into account. We don't do that with other animals either, and you do it here because the possible sizes are too shocking and beyond your imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 27, 2013 19:27:59 GMT 5
That would mean that things like ~78-tonne Amphicoelias and ~12.5-meter Spinosaurus were actually quite liberal, since extra assumptions have been taken that made them smaller. You are right about the Spinosaurus thing, but the 78 t Amphicoelias is simply based on an alternative vertebrae reconstruction. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 19:41:33 GMT 5
That just downscaled Carpenter's result, which itself was an underestimate. It actually approximately ends up at Carpenter's original estimate with the smaller vertebra, and at approximately 200t with Carpenter's vertebra (based on the msot conservative possible Diplodocus, 10,25t), so it overlaps nicely with the Plagne sauropod.
That's why the range from SVPOW is somewhat lower than what the scaling would indicate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 19:44:12 GMT 5
Nothing is beyond my imagination here, theropod. Only I don't express overenthusiasm in enigmatic animals in which the possible size range is just as monstrous as the sizes estimates figured. I'm opened to any possibilities but for now I don't consider these as solid and will more rely on the (relatively) better known giants actually studied in which we have a better (still relative) understanding of their sizes.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 19:52:10 GMT 5
You don't need to speculate to see the proposed size ranges and what they base on. What you shouldn't do is just ignore them. Footprints are not useless for size estimation as some seem to believe.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 20:21:37 GMT 5
Yeah, Nima WAYYY oversized his, I doubt the specimen we have was more than 30 meters at the absolute most, but still pretty heavy at 70-75 tons. Compared to Nima's whopping 38 meters and 110 tons! Wich vertebrae? Huh? well for one he made the 1.68 meter back vert 2 meters wide without much good reason. The second thing is titanosaur dorsals tend to stay about the same length down the body, but Nima made them get much longer as the go back. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 27, 2013 20:31:07 GMT 5
You don't need to speculate to see the proposed size ranges and what they base on. What you shouldn't do is just ignore them. Footprints are not useless for size estimation as some seem to believe. I don't speculate, I take what is proposed, and in this what is "more likely" and what is "credible". See my quote from Taylor. Fine with this. |
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 27, 2013 20:52:08 GMT 5
Well, to drop some non-amphicoelias action on you guys, this is a list of what I can determine are the largest sauropods known from the fossil record. I basically set the cutoff as "Bigger than Giraffatitan".
All sizes are estimated, some more so than others...
The heights are the most guessish, so take them as rough values.
Elaltitan lilloi
Weight-55t?
Length-30m?
Height-14m?
French Titanosaur
Weight-60t?
Length-31m?
Height-15m?
Ultrasauripus ungulatus (Ichnogenus)
Weight-70t?
Length-35m?
Height-22m?
Argyrosaurus superbus
Weight-55-60t
Length-28m
Height-13m
Brachiosaurus altithorax
Weight-35t/50t
Length-23m/27m
Height-14m/16m
Giraffatitan branci
Weight-30t/45t
Length-23m/26m
Height-15m/17m
LacovaraÂ’s Titanosaur
Weight-50t?
Length-29m?
Height-13m?
Diplodocus hallorum
Weight-20-25t
Length-33m
Height-10m
Apatosaurus excelsus
Weight-18t/55t
Length-23m/34m
Height-7/10m
Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum
Weight-50t
Length-35m
Height-21m
Broome Titanosaur (Ichnogenus)
Weight-130-200t?
Length-40-47m?
Height-17-20m
Huanghetitan ruyangensis
Weight-55t?
Length-30m?
Height-13m?
Amphicoelias fragillimus
Weight-165-265t?
Length-60-80m?
Height-18-23m?
Brachiosaurus nougaredi
Weight-110t?
Length-40-42m?
Height-26-28m?
Plagne Diplodocid (Ichnogenus)
Weight- 100-110t?
Length-55m?
Height-16m?
Antarctosaurus giganteus
Weight-55t
Length-30m
Height-14m
Hudiesaurus sinojapanorum
Weight-30-45t?
Length-30-33m?
Height-17-18m?
Puertasaurus reuili
Weight-75t
Length-30m
Height-14.5m
Argentinosaurus huinculensis
Weight-70-75t
Length-33m
Height-16m
Alamosaurus sanjuanensis
Weight-50-60t
Length-28-30m
Height-14.5m
Sauroposeidon proteles
Weight-50-60t
Length-32m
Height-20m
Futalogonkosaurus dukei
Weight-45t
Length-26m
Height-12.5m
Supersaurus vivanae
Weight-40-50t
Length-35-40m
Height-13m
Breviparopus taghbaloutensis (Ichnogenus)
Weight-60t?
Length-31m?
Height-19m?
Paralatitan stromeri (Subadult)
Weight-45t
Length-27m
Height-12m
Ruyangosaurus giganteus
Weight-60-70t?
Length-28-30m?
Height-13m?
Parabrontopodus distercii (Ichnogenus)
Weight-90-100t?
Length-52m?
Height-15.5m?
Thats 27 species, some yet to be described, if I missed any let me know!
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 27, 2013 21:05:27 GMT 5
You don't need to speculate to see the proposed size ranges and what they base on. What you shouldn't do is just ignore them. Footprints are not useless for size estimation as some seem to believe. I don't speculate, I take what is proposed, and in this what is "more likely" and what is "credible". See my quote from Taylor. Fine with this. Who says it is more likely? That's the question. I showed quotes too: Fact is too absolute a statement. that this is liberal hypothesis is BS tough. 200t sauropods are fully possible based on the evidence. for the liberalism pf the method, there's this: We have an animal that can plausibly reach this size. This is no less likely than some estimates you use yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 27, 2013 21:10:50 GMT 5
What about Supercommunist's points? Such an animal would have a very hard life.
|
|
